Sainsbury’s, to use the demotic title for Britain’s second largest chain of supermarkets, is important to the UK retail sector.  These days, it’s true, the Sainsbury family own only 16% of the (reportable) global empire, and prefer the adornments of honours and high office and the sweet odour of charitable deeds to flogging cornflakes and spuds.  But Sainsbury family funds flow like lifeblood into the Labour Party, and no doubt the Tories get their whack too.  So the views they - or their underlings, actually - present to House of Lords committees of enquiry can hardly go unnoticed:-

Sainsbury’s says ‘immigrants better workers’

Immigrant workers have a “superior” work ethic to British employees, according to the supermarket giant Sainsbury’s.

The company said it found immigrants to be more flexible and happier with their terms and conditions in employment.

It added that employing migrant workers in its stores often had a positive impact on the domestic staff. Sainsbury’s was giving evidence to a House of Lords inquiry into the impact of immigration.

In a written submission, it said that it had greatly increased the number of immigrants it employed over the past two years and would likely continue to do so in future.

It said: “We have found migrant workers to have a very satisfactory work ethic, in many cases superior to domestic workers.

“We believe this results from their differing motivations — they want to learn English, or send money home to their families.

“They tend to be more willing to work flexibly, and be satisfied with their duties, terms and conditions and productivity requirements.

“In the long term, this could have a positive effect on their domestic colleagues. In some areas we have definitely seen a positive shift in culture where migrant workers have been introduced, which has led to a more diverse workforce fostering a more engaged group of workers.”

The company, which employs 150,000 people, said it did not specifically recruit migrant workers and looked for the “highest calibre recruit” for any vacancy.

... Sainsbury’s said it had not met with trade union resistance to employing migrant workers and said, as the UK population decreased and aged, migrant worker use would likely increase.

So it’s all there, really ... the argument for a controllable, wage-competitive workforce.  Hardly a foundation for working class solidarity.  So why the complicity of the trade unions.  Are they simply run by too many internationalists and fervent anti-racists who would rather drink hemlock than raise the issue of race?  Or are they simply too craven or too well-in with the political Establishment ... all fixed up for a merry-go-round future of superannuated, semi-detached jobs with NGOs, government commissions and what-have-you?

I don’t know.  But they are not the only dogs, of course, who do not bark.  What about the eerie silence from our elected representatives?  Here’s what the academic, author and libertarian Sean Gabb had to say in one of his Free Life Commentaries:-

Now, I had tea a few months ago with a Conservative Member of Parliament. I put parts of this case [for the decline in electoral participation - Ed] to him. His reply was that his constituents—and he meets hundreds of these every month—barely ever mention these heads of complaint. He would love them to complain about Europe and political correctness. Instead, they complain about poor standards in the schools and about hospital closures. I was an intellectual, he told me. I might want the world to be as I claimed it was. But he was a politician. He had to deal with a very different real world in which people had fundamentally changed even since 1997.

The conversation moved after this to matters on which we could talk more amicably over the teacups. But he was wrong and I was right. The truth is that few people think very well, and most people do not think at all. They are unhappy with England as it has become. But they are not able to say what are the causes of their unhappiness. On immigration and political correctness they are frightened to say what they probably do think. On the other issues they are unable to speak because they do not know what to say.

It’s easy to see from these two conflicting dynamics - the business drive for cost savings and the curiously muddled and downright missing case for the defendant - that there’s only one foreseeable outcome.  And it’s the wrong one.

But imagine what kind of power there would need to be behind the “defendant’s case” to match the business juggernaut and bring it to a halt.  A veritable revolution ... street politics, new parties, free media!  And all in a land of mortgage debt and product fetishism.  Perhaps not, then.

So where do we go from here?

We’ve all seen countless examples of this kind of ad:

Indeed, such ads have become the norm, but rarely does anyone talk about what must be going on in the advertising company meetings producing them.

Is there any way to get an idea of what is actually said between the ad company employees who produce this torrent of propaganda imagery?

PS: And I probably shouldn’t single out ad companies.  I was at a rural elementary school in the Pacific Northwest, where it is basically all white, recently and the “educational” imagery was the black male with blond female photos we are all familiar with coming out of Madison Avenue, except as children.

My thanks to Desmond Jones for this link (pdf) which details a draft resolution before the UN General Assembly on the rights of indigenous peoples.  Since it is inconceivable that the peoples of Europe can be winnowed out of this resolution, even on the grounds of past colonialism, it is a significant codification of our status as peoples even potentially under threat.

There are several formulations in this document that struck me as interesting.  But the plainest and most applicable to our uses is Article 8:-

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to
forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress
for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their
integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their
lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of
violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic
discrimination directed against them

You don’t need me to draw the picture for you.  Our efforts against the replacers and their useful idiots will only be strengthened by this.

On September 30th the left-wing Croatian daily Novi List ran a feature on the European New Right, concentrating in large measure on the figure of Tomislav Sunic.  Tom has translated the page for me, and I’m pleased to publish it below.

Fair treatment by and regular exposure in the mainstream media is still a distant goal for most thinkers and activists on the radical right.  Here is one only too rare example of it.

NEW RIGHT-WINGERS DO NOT TOLERATE TALES ABOUT EQUALITY

The basic attitude of New Right-wingers is anti-egalitarian, i.e. the contention that all people cannot be the same, which is the main differential political and cultural point between the Left and the Right.  They are hostile to Marxism, Liberalism, and on their list of enemies are also the Church, the USA and Israel …

by Neven Santic

When two weeks ago the media made public that David Duke, the former chief of the infamous KKK, visited Croatia in order to conduct an interview with Dr Tomislav Sunic, whose book Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age was recently published in the USA, many became intrigued by Sunic himself, and by the ideas he advocates.  This was especially so when the word spread that Sunic’s house-guest for a few days was sociobiologist Richard Lynn, known for his research of IQ among different nations.

Prof Richard Lynn (left) with Dr Sunic

Tomislav Sunic obtained his doctorate in the USA, and his doctoral theme was framed in his book “Against Democracy”,  in which he criticized American democracy.  For some time he was a professor in that country, and after his return to Croatia he devoted his time to writing and publishing.  In Zagreb he published the book “Ameri?ka ideologija,” in which he attempted to lay bare the American way of life.  Over the last 15 years he has written numerous articles for specialized journals promoting conservative ideas.

READ MORE...

Herein is a copy of the email I sent out to my historic kith and kin many of whom are under the neocons’ spell.  Yes—it is stark.

READ MORE...

As Labour luxuriates in its eleven point poll lead, quietly hires electoral staff, mobilises the unions, and hits one more time on its main donors, does anyone really think that Gordon Brown - that man of “Stalinist ruthlessness” - won’t name the day next week?  And does anyone really think that Young Master Bland can defeat him?

Probably not many, if one is honest.  But there’s no doubt that, from a nativist POV, a change would be better than more Brown.  Yes, I know that Establishment politics is for the benefit of the Establishment.  None of the traditional parties will willingly challenge the historical dynamics of globalism, economism, social liberalism, population change et al.  But we’ve seen enough of Labour to know that we do not want another decade like the last.

Meanwhile, the gauche, Nu-Tory idiocies that so alienated grassroots support in the shires seem to have been sidelined.  Nothing concentrates the political mind like nearness to power.

So today we have two tempting tax carrots dangled before us: on Stamp Duty and on Inheritance Tax.  It’s a beginning.  Inheritance Tax is a particularly pernicious attack on family wealth and, at 40% on estates over £300,000, highly disruptive to the white middle-class.  There is the view, of course, that disruption is exactly what’s needed to wake people up.  But it doesn’t work like that.  Capitalism has been remarkable effective in raising living standards.  The white middle-class doesn’t lose its comforts through the loss of the parental home.  It is simply pressed that bit further into the mold of the wage-slave.

By contrast, George Osborne’s proposed tax on non-domicile earnings - NDs proliferate in the utterly deracinated and globalised financial sector - is a genuine nationalist proposal.  Not that he knows it, of course.

I am waiting, therefore, to see what other election goodies Bland Dave has in store this week.  Besides tax, the policy areas the party faithful will demand to be addressed are immigration, pensions, law & order, Europe, the family, and house-building.  If they really want to be populist, the Midlothian Question can be added to the list. 

So here’s what would make me vote Cameron, notwithstanding my previous utterances about the fellow.

1. An immigration moratorium; a genuine border force; a determined beginning to the repatriation of illegals.

2. As the baby-boomers eye retirement, a holistic vision for pensions and social care provision for the elderly.

3. The depoliticisation of the police (and the de-Marxisation of the civil service); a new programme of prison-building in acknowledgment of the sociobiological facts of life viz-a-vis our vibrant new countrymen.

4. A referendum on the dratted Reform Treaty.

5. Recognition in the tax system of the contribution made by marriage towards a stable family life.

6. Protection of the Green Belt and cancellation, of course, of Brown’s latest housebuilding outrage.

Finally, English votes for English laws would be a long stride towards the needed break-up of the British state.  I’d really go for that.  And to top it off, some stuff on civil liberties - starting with the repeal of the ban on hunting with dogs.

I would be interested to know what our Canadian regulars make of Connie Fogal’s civil libertarian, anti-globalist Canadian Action Party.  I’ve just been perusing their website, which is very impressive ... not least for its journalism.

Here’s the front end of a two-part feature article titled: The Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by Our Own Government.  It is informed and detailed journalism of a calibre we do not see nearly often enough.

Of course, the Party is condemned to a narrow platform because it is operating within the existing liberal political milieu, so whether the radicalism can be summoned to really change things remains to be seen.

Part One: The North American Union

Introduction

The North American continent is being transformed from three sovereign nations Canada, USA, Mexico) into one regional corporate power base, the North American Union. Unlike the creation of the European Union, there is no public political/ academic discourse on the merits, or pros and cons of a North American Union building up to a vote within each nation as to the wish of the people to join such a union. Instead the union is being created by stealth, is already well on its way to fruition, and is being imposed on us by our own elected representatives and government with no opposition.

The driving force is corporate. The Chief Executive Officers of the most powerful corporations operating in the three countries want this union and have been working for some time devising their strategies and goals. Their facilitators are first, unelected officials and bureaucrats who move easily between corporations and government; second, former elected officials like John Manley , former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada; third, the heads of the three nations, Martin, Bush, and Fox; and finally, the governments and the rest of the elected members who apparently just rubber stamp what is put in front of them by the unelected officials- few questions, if any asked.

The ultimate enforcement mechanism for the North American Union is a police state.

The tools for the police state are “anti-terrorist” laws which, in themselves, are a ruse to strip the citizens of civil liberties in order to prevent dissent against the police state.

The Orwellian justification is “security”, “safety”.

READ MORE...

All this talk about the evils of “preemptive war” among Ron Paul supporters has goaded me to post a nuance that should be obvious to all reasonable men:

Just as with individual self-defense, there are cases where it is justifiable to pull the trigger first.  These are not normal circumstances but clearly the law allows for them as must all reasonable men.

However—and here’s the rub—when one wrongly appeals to the “preemptive defense” argument, the punishment of the perpetrator must be more severe than it is for honest aggression.  Indeed the punishment must be severe enough to cause the perpetrator to, in the future, prefer honest aggression to such subversion of legitimate defense.

Clear enough?